US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade

[Silverbullet767]

jsf said:

Silverbullet767 said:

According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.

Thats not what it means.

How could I possibly be confused. https://youtu.be/sRGp0S7qZLw

[sim72]

98elise said:

I don't see the link between abortion and gay marriage. You could easily be against abortion but for gay marriage, so where is the irony?

You've never met an American religious fundamentalist then.

It's the "pro-life" thing that makes me laugh, because the Venn diagram of anti-abortionists and those in favour of the death penalty isn't far off being a perfect circle.

[gregs656]

off_again said:

Well I hope not!

I know that there is a lot published about this and I try to remain open-minded as much as possible. And yes, some are suggesting that same-sex marriages and so on are on the cards. This is because whats-his-face-nutjob published his views on the subject. This isnt an indication that they will turn their attention to this next. His argument is that under the constitution, there is not necessarily a direct provision for these things - IN HIS VIEW.

The supreme court doesnt get to just do what it wants - these points need to be forced through the lower courts first, before they get to these partisan morons. Of course, several could have died, the numbers changed or whatever - who knows.

I do believe that this is a significant step for politics in general though. We arent likely to feel the effects for a while, but do be aware that the majority of Americans DONT believe that this should have passed. This is a minority thing and it gets worse when we get to the same-sex legislation. This is going to ps off a lot of the voting public and they will not stand for it. While as far as you can get from evidence, my neighbor is a gun-toting republican - as red as you can get! But this is one step too far for him - as the father to two girls, he sees this as a religious law for a country that is supposed to be the land of liberty. He's shifted his views massively, and I cannot think that there arent millions of others just like him!

Dont get me wrong, I am absolutely and utterly against this verdict. But I dont see it as the thin edge of further religious-based nutjob crap.

I don’t think this is quite right.

The reason people think this is the thin end of the wedge is because Alito provides a list of other unenumerated rights that are protected by the 14th amendment and basically says ‘but abortion is different’

Clearly this ruling does open up those doors. The list is a dog whistle to states and pressure groups on what issues the court thinks are vulnerable.

Also the Supreme Court pretty much does get to do what it wants, particularly at the moment with the super majority because they decide which cases to take.

There are any number of political activist groups that take on cases to get them in front of the Supreme Court, and they take advantage of the make up of state courts and the associated federal courts to make it happen.

If not a pressure group - it is pretty obvious that states will do exactly what Mississippi did here and put a law on the books, I’d guess relating to gay marriage which isn’t popular in all states, and let it run.

[anonymous-user]

Silverbullet767 said:

How could I possibly be confused. https://youtu.be/sRGp0S7qZLw

Quote easily it appears.

[InitialDave]

Randy Winkman said:

do you personally think that it's a child 1 minute before it's born?

This always comes up. It doesn't matter.

Just give women the freedom to just sort things out between themselves and their doctor.

If a medical intervention or abortion is needed late in a pregnancy, if is not because someone woke up that morning and decided they just felt like it.

Trust women and doctors to manage it correctly.

[Carl_Manchester]

Newarch said:

ATG said:

If abortion was purely about women's freedoms, then your be right. But patently obviously isn't just about women's freedoms.

What else is it about then?

Religion? Just a made up system for controlling people I’m afraid.

I agree with what the poster said but from a slightly different angle, men have a very large role to play on the basis that women form the minority of voters within both camps.

Therefore it's a case of the male political voting majority needing to project the rights of the female minority.

Men do not have a small role to play, it's actually gotten much bigger as the swing votes on each side (dem vs. gop) regarding abortion are about a third.

[Electro1980]

MiniMan64 said:

Rufus Stone said:

Silverbullet767 said:

According to the US Constitution. A person is. "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution states, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Born being the important part. Before that they're not a person.

Religion should play no part in it, or anything at all in my opinion.

Are you for real?

To be fair, the wide ranging issues in America with guns come from a literally interpreted sentence in the constitution too.

It’s not even a sentence, it’s a sentence fragment, ignoring the important qualifiers.

[dvs_dave]

sim72 said:

You've never met an American religious fundamentalist then.

It's the "pro-life" thing that makes me laugh, because the Venn diagram of anti-abortionists and those in favour of the death penalty isn't far off being a perfect circle.

Add in pro-guns, and it becomes a perfect circle.

[Jenny Tailor]

IMO - Political appointment of Judges is the root cause of the problem.

[Silverbullet767]

Jenny Tailor said:

IMO - Political appointment of Judges is the root cause of the problem.

And religion/power/money.

[ATG]

Newarch said:

ATG said:

If abortion was purely about women's freedoms, then your be right. But patently obviously isn't just about women's freedoms.

What else is it about then?

Religion? Just a made up system for controlling people I’m afraid.

You have to decide if the unborn child has rights independent of its mother. If it does, then those rights naturally compete with a woman's freedom, and therefore there's more to think about than just women's freedom.

For example, I doubt you'd allow the termination of a baby one day before its due date. Wouldn't you agree that a woman shouldn't have an absolute right to choose to terminate a baby at that stage of pregnancy?

[ATG]

Silverbullet767 said:

Rufus Stone said:

Silverbullet767 said:

Good point, we and all men should stfu on this. No man should decide anything to do with womens freedoms.

America's still fked though.

Are men not entitled to an opinion on protecting the life of the unborn child?

No. And it's not a child if its unborn. Take your religious nuttery elsewhere.

Seriously, don't be silly. Justify the assertion that a child only becomes a child at the instant of birth. You don't have to have religious faith to recognise that that idea is nonsensical.

[Castrol for a knave]

ATG said:

Newarch said:

ATG said:

If abortion was purely about women's freedoms, then your be right. But patently obviously isn't just about women's freedoms.

What else is it about then?

Religion? Just a made up system for controlling people I’m afraid.

You have to decide if the unborn child has rights independent of its mother. If it does, then those rights naturally compete with a woman's freedom, and therefore there's more to think about than just women's freedom.

For example, I doubt you'd allow the termination of a baby one day before its due date. Wouldn't you agree that a woman shouldn't have an absolute right to choose to terminate a baby at that stage of pregnancy?

Most countries do not allow termination at that stage, so your point is moot.

Terminations after 20 weeks are vanishingly small (1%) and almost exclusively for health reasons

Edited by Castrol for a knave on Saturday 25th June 21:36

[ATG]

Castrol for a knave said:

ATG said:

Newarch said:

ATG said:

If abortion was purely about women's freedoms, then your be right. But patently obviously isn't just about women's freedoms.

What else is it about then?

Religion? Just a made up system for controlling people I’m afraid.

You have to decide if the unborn child has rights independent of its mother. If it does, then those rights naturally compete with a woman's freedom, and therefore there's more to think about than just women's freedom.

For example, I doubt you'd allow the termination of a baby one day before its due date. Wouldn't you agree that a woman shouldn't have an absolute right to choose to terminate a baby at that stage of pregnancy?

Most countries do not allow termination at that stage, so your point is moot.

Terminations after 20 weeks are vanishingly small (1%) and almost exclusively for health reasons

Edited by Castrol for a knave on Saturday 25th June 21:36

No, obviously the point is not moot. The whole bleeding point is that if it were just about female autonomy then you WOULD allow terminations whenever the woman chose. But just as you say, no one actually thinks that's reasonable.

[Castrol for a knave]

ATG said:

Castrol for a knave said:

ATG said:

Newarch said:

ATG said:

If abortion was purely about women's freedoms, then your be right. But patently obviously isn't just about women's freedoms.

What else is it about then?

Religion? Just a made up system for controlling people I’m afraid.

You have to decide if the unborn child has rights independent of its mother. If it does, then those rights naturally compete with a woman's freedom, and therefore there's more to think about than just women's freedom.

For example, I doubt you'd allow the termination of a baby one day before its due date. Wouldn't you agree that a woman shouldn't have an absolute right to choose to terminate a baby at that stage of pregnancy?

Most countries do not allow termination at that stage, so your point is moot.

Terminations after 20 weeks are vanishingly small (1%) and almost exclusively for health reasons

Edited by Castrol for a knave on Saturday 25th June 21:36

No, obviously the point is not moot. The whole bleeding point is that if it were just about female autonomy then you WOULD allow terminations whenever the woman chose. But just as you say, no one actually thinks that's reasonable.

In which case I may have misread your post, and we are arguing the same point.

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

Silverbullet767 said:

MiniMan64 said:

Is there a single woman posting on this thread or are we a bunch of men debating what women should be allowed to do and not do with their own bodies?

Good point, we and all men should stfu on this. No man should decide anything to do with womens freedoms.

America's still fked though.

If abortion was purely about women's freedoms, then your be right. But patently obviously isn't just about women's freedoms.

There are at most three other parties with an interest in abortion besides the pregnant woman. The would be father, the foetus, and the public as a whole (the so-called public interest).

The father on any view ranks bottom when it comes to decisions during pregnancy. The public interest should reflect the views of a reasonable and right thinking public as a whole, so ought to do no more than reflect the proper balance of the interest of the mother and the foetus.

Your subsequent posts flail the strawman of termination one day before term. No one, anywhere, ever, defends this as an appropriate time for abortion.

The balance to be struck is when during a pregnancy should the interests of the foetus outweigh those of the pregnant woman, such that the latter is no longer able to exercise bodily autonomy.

The approach taken by some US states in the wake of Roe’s repeal is offensive, plain and simple. Stripping a woman of all autonomy from conception, six weeks, or 15 weeks, when she is carrying a blob of cells is self evidently not the correct point at which to strike the balance.

The reasoning in SCOTUS’s decision hands the power to choose the balancing point to state legislatures, according to what they consider to be right for their state. That’s not a public interest test. It is a political test. Or, as some states now see it, a Christian-centric theocratic test.

America is heading towards a version of the nation states it has fought for the last 20 odd years. Just an evangelical Christian one, rather than a Muslim one.

[anonymous-user]

Personally I hope that this decision results in the destruction of the GOP in the midterms.

However, I suspect that too a large part of America has lurched towards the evangelical Christian Right, and as many voters who are appalled by this decision, there will be a similar number willing to vote to endorse it.

[Cobracc]

Tankrizzo said:

It's coming. If the GOP wins the White House in 2024 we are one step away from it.

A national religion ban would be better.

[MC Bodge]

A truly awful turn of events and indicative of a very troubling direction of travel (backwards).

Looking on from Europe in 2022, What a weird nation the US is.

[dudleybloke]

Cobracc said:

A national religion ban would be better.

Amen to that!